1995 PLP 492 (MLD)

‑‑‑‑S. 15‑‑‑Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908), S. 115‑‑‑Suit for pre‑emption instituted on 14‑7‑1986, was dismissed long after the crucial date viz. 31‑7‑1986‑‑‑Judgment and decree of Trial Court (in dismissing suit) was maintained by Appellate Court ‑‑‑Validity‑‑‑Pre‑emption suit which had not been decreed prior to 31‑7‑1986, could not succeed subsequently on any ground, co‑ownership, contiguity etc: ‑Plaintiff was, thus, not entitled to decree in his suit for pre‑emption. Muhammad Shoaib and others v. Member (Revenue) and others PLD 1988 SC 355; Ghulam Qadir v. Nawab Din PLD 1988 SC 701; Aiwaz Khan and another v. Allah Bakhsh PLD 1988 SC 730; Government of N: W.F.P. and others v. Said Kamal Shah and others PLD 1990 SC 865; Mst. Aziz Begum and others v. Federation of Pakistan and others PLD 1990 SC 890; Muhammad Yasin and others v. Khan Muhammad and others PLD 1990 SC 1060 and Muhammad Aziz and others v. Syed Haider Ali Shah and others PLD 1991 SC 1080 rel. Shabbir Ahmad Lali for Petitioners. Noor Muhammad Awan Malik for Respondents. Date of hearing: 1st November, 1992. A pre‑emption suit was filed by Allah Yar against Muhammad Amir, etc. pre‑empting a sale dated 14‑7‑1985, effected in favour of the defendants vendees, Muhammad Amir, Muhammad Nazir, Muhammad Iqbal and Muhammad Saeed sons of Sultan Mahmood, by the owners of the land, Mst. Sat Bharai widow and Ghulam Muhammad son of Jahan Khan. Sale price. of the suit‑land, as stated in the deed dated 14‑7‑1985, was Rs.70,000, although according to the plaintiff/pre‑emptor, in actual practice, it was Rs.36,

500. The plaintiff pleaded contiguity as also co‑sharership in the Khata, in which the land in suit was comprised, maintaining that the said qualifications were not possessed by the defendants‑vendees. The suit was instituted on 14‑7‑1986, exactly a year after the sale, and it was strenuously contested by the defendants, giving rise to certain issues, which have been discussed and determined by the learned trial Judge, Mr. K.M. Sohail, Civil Judge, Ist Class, Mianwali, who has referred to Hafiz Khuda Bakhsh and another v. The State (PLD 1988 SC 413), in observing that making of demands, as ordained by Sharia, was a sine qua non for making a preferential claim by way of pre‑emption. In the suit, there is no mention made by the plaintiff, in that behalf, and actually when the suit was instituted, there was no such concept in existence and the plaintiff could not possibly make the demand or plead having done so.

2. Mr. Ala‑ud‑Din Arshad Nagi, Additional District Judge, Mianwali has upheld the judgment and decree dated 20‑12‑1988., passed by the learned Civil Judge, by a judgment announced on 6‑3‑1989. It is so well known that the pre -emption suits, which have not been decreed prior to 31‑7‑1986, cannot now succeed, on any ground, co‑ownership contiguity, etc. Reliance has rightly been placed by the learned Additional District Judge an Muhammad Shoaib and others v. Member (Revenue) and others (PLD 1988 SC 355), Ghulam Qadir v. Nawab Din (PLD 1988 SC 701), Aiwaz Khan and another v. Allah Bakhsh (PLD 1988 SC '730), Government of N.‑W.F.P. and others v. Said Kamal Shah and others (PLD 1990 SC 865), Mst. Aziz Begum and others v. Federation of Pakistan and others (PLD 1990 SC 890), Muhammad Yasin and others v. Khan Muhammad and others (PLD 1990 SC 1060) and Muhammad Aziz and others v. Syed Haider Ali Shah and others (PLD 1991 SC 1080). If deceased plaintiffs successors‑in‑interest Mst. Mehrai, etc. now maintain that the suit had to be governed by the provisions of Punjab Pre‑emption Act, 1913, and not by the new Act, nor by the law evolved by the superior‑Courts on the subject, they are labouring under a misconception and a fallacy, since latest position of law on the subject is so clear that it does not admit of any ambiguity or any other interpretation. The learned counsel for the petitioners could not actually make home his point and reinforce his contentions, when confronted with the legal position as propounded by the Supreme Court of Pakistan in the realm of law of pre‑emption. The revision has no force and is hereby dismissed, with of course, no order as to costs. AA./M‑1792/L Revision dismissed.